M S SIDHAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents and perused the records.

(2.) THE challenge by the petitioner is to the charge memo given to him under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner was employed as an Agricultural officer under the second respondent and was to have retired on 30. 6. 2001 on reaching the age of superannuation. But, however, just three days prior to his retirement, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 27. 6. 2001 in terms of Rule 56 (1) (c) of the Fundamental Rules so as to enable the Government to take further disciplinary action against him. Thereafter, the respondent did not do anything and waited for nearly five years to frame the charge memo which is impugned in the writ petition. The ground taken in the writ petition is that the charges relate to very old incident, ie. , as many as 22 years old, and on the ground of delay, the petitioner is liable to succeed. Even as early as 1985-86, a proposal to take action on the very same charges were stated to be dropped by the second respondent. It was also stated that another person, by name, Ananth, was allowed to retire without any charges and this would amount to discrimination. It is also stated that the petitioner was attacked with paralytic stroke and even he was unable to put his signature and, therefore, he has affixed his thumb impression on the affidavit sworn to by him, which is available in support of the writ petition. The petitioner moved this Court with writ petition being W. P. No. 6089 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the respondent to pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide show cause notice dated 09. 4. 2005. This Court, by an order dated 20. 02. 2007, directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders by considering the representation of the petitioner. In fact, after the direction of this Court only, the impugned order of charge memo came to be passed. The charges listed under Annexure I are very serious and cannot be dealt with lightly. In fact, in Annexure II, it is stated that the petitioner was proceeded with a criminal prosecution by the CCIW Police, Tuticorin, in Crime No. 4 of 1990. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was shown as the third accused and after the trial, he was imposed with the punishment of Rs. 50/- fine as well as sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court vide judgment dated 03. 02. 1993. Though it is stated by the petitioner that he was not convicted for the main charge and the charge is only for abetment, such an issue will have to be decided only by the appropriate authority.

(3.) IT is seen that the second respondent, by an office memo dated 19. 3. 1997, decided to drop the charges in respect of conviction. It is not clear as to how the second respondent had any authority to close the said file. In fact, if any other person was dealt with differently, it is for the petitioner to make appropriate representation and seek for a similar remedy. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner wanted only the disciplinary proceedings be expedited. But, however, he had not sent any reply to the charge memo, which was issued by the State Government pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to submit explanation to the said charge memo and convince the authorities either it does not warrant any further disciplinary action or that the treatment given to one Anand, who was allegedly similarly placed, also should be extended to him.